cerebro_record

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a write operation ('store', 'leave a trace') but does not mention whether existing entries are overwritten, required permissions, or any side effects. The behavior is minimally described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, which is concise. However, the first sentence uses metaphorical language ('leave a trace') that may be slightly unclear. Overall, it is efficient but could be more direct.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 3 parameters with no schema descriptions or annotations, the description is incomplete. It provides no details on 'path' and 'model', nor does it specify behavior like overwriting or output. The existence of an output schema does not excuse missing parameter documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only describes the content of 'summary' (write 1-3 dense sentences) but does not clarify 'path' (file location) or 'model' (purpose and default behavior). No additional meaning is provided beyond what a vague name suggests.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool stores an English understanding of a file for reuse, using specific verb 'store' and resource 'English understanding'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cerebro_get (retrieve) and cerebro_recall (recall) by its write-and-reuse nature.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you want to save a file summary for future sessions, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites or comparison with siblings like cerebro_note.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.